“Break up to make up…that’s all we do… First you love me…then you hate me….That’s a game for fools…”
More than a mere love ballad, the Stylistics deduced a logical proof to negotiations and legal theory that would surpass its initial scope, having far more wide range applicability than the non-unique failure of seventies relationships. Simply put, conflict without resolution is unsustainable.
More than unsustainable, it is a complete waste of time and resources. The Stylistics’ astute analysis finds itself wasted on the inevitable and timeless love wars between the sexes, a subject better addressed among the enlightened forum of public Facebook updates. The conception of conflict without resolution as unsustainable is more readily appreciated in the realm of Landlord and Tenant.
The process of effectively managing landlord tenant relationships is a daily nightmare for many, and a sensitive subject for most given the anxieties surrounding personal finances and emotional wellbeing. Discomfort notwithstanding, when conflict inevitably arises, such conflict demands efficient resolution or result in effective waste. Luckily, the Stylistics’ have already provided us a game plan, to wit:
Phase One: First You Love Me…
All relationships have a honey moon phase, Landlord-Tenant relationships are no exception to this rule. During phase one, the key to effective management of Landlord-Tenant relationships is “forgiving not forgetting”; or rather, the detailed documentation of all potential issues and red flags via creation and maintenance of an evidentiary record of mutual conduct. “In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in civil trials, such as [unlawful detainer matters], the party who is required to prove something need prove only that it is more likely to be true than not true.” [California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 200]
Applied to the matter at discussion, Tenants and Owners should both take great care in the formation and maintenance of the Landlord-Tenant relationship, i.e. Print out and prepare written lease agreements/modifications, draft letters, document events and results of conferences, keep copies of all receipts and records as opposed to opting for more ephemeral means of communication e.g. cellular texts. Even in the election of textual communications, remember to print to pdf all communications via a third-party application prior to deletion. Thus, creation and maintenance of an evidentiary record is key to a successful litigation.
Phase Two: Then You Hate Me
When the relationship hits rock bottom, ending the relationship in most cases, but not always, requires a legally sufficient demand. [See Budaef v. Huber (1961) 194 CA2d 12, 17, 14 CR 729, 733; Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs (1952) 39 C2d 654, 661, 248 P2d 897, 901] (“Unlawful detainer notice prerequisites do not apply in ejectment actions. However, if ejectment is sought for nonpayment of rent, some prior demand for rent must have been made. On the other hand, ejectment based on a breach other than nonpayment of rent does not require a prior demand for performance.”)
Taking the law in your own hands is not the recommended course of action due to the complex interaction of adverse legal interests and rights of both landlord and tenant. The summary possession statutes (unlawful detainer, and forcible entry and detainer, CCP § 1159 et seq.) set forth the procedural mechanism for effecting a lawful eviction. These procedures replace the common law “self-help” repossession remedy, which often led to violence between landlords and tenants. [Daluiso v. Boone (1969) 71 C2d 484, 495, 78 CR 707, 714; Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 C2d 597, 605, 12 CR 488, 492]
“Real property tenants are not “trespassers”—even if they are unlawfully detaining! They are entitled to peaceful possession until proper legal process, by settlement or judgment, awards possession to the landlord (and even then, actual dispossession of the tenants must be effected by statutorily authorized eviction procedures).“ [Four Seas Investment Corp. v. International Hotel Tenants’ Ass’n (1978) 81 CA3d 604, 612, 146 CR 531, 535; Bedi v. McMullan (1984) 160 CA3d 272, 276-277, 206 CR 578, 581; see Glass v. Najafi (2000) 78 CA4th 45, 48-49, 92 CR2d 606, 608-609—writ of possession improperly issued absent judgment for possession]
Please contact our law office today for a professional consultation , legal assessment or, if you require assistance with the efficient resolution of a Real Estate or Landlord-Tenant dispute, including the prosecution and defense of all vital aspects of an unlawful detainer proceeding.
